"He also said there had been 'much research' into people in his situation, and that it had showed that not being sexually fulfilled can lead to 'frustration and aggression'."

I have some sympathy for anyone's potential frustration, but it's clear any agression wouldn't, um, rise to the level of a social problem if the individual can't move well enough even to get a brothel.

to your point, eddie: the costs of a similar program might be different for women. I at least wouldn't want just visits: I expect dinner and at least a phone call, too.

And Bush calls himself a 'compassionate conservative'. We sure don't see the government providing all of our needs like they do in enlightened Europe. Note that the discussion is not on what should be provided, rather whether who should be the increased 'delivery' charge for 'take out' vs 'dine in'.

I would also like to go on record as saying I am ugly. In fact, I want to say I am so ugly that I think it amounts to a disability. Just want to cover my bases in case Hillary wins in 2008.

I used to think that there was merit in this type of social service, but an articulate friend convinced me otherwise. He argued that it was best to take such matters into your own hands. But then again he was a master debater.

Too bad there aren't more individuals willing to give the disabled the time of day or to see them as possible mates instead of as burdens or inconveniences.

If someone would be willing to have a relationship with Mr. Hansen, perhaps this prostitute thing would be moot. Individual responsibility is at the heart. Mr. Hansen bears some responsibility for "getting out there" and his neighbors (as "Who is my neighbor?") bear much responsibility.

ALH... besides being snarky about "God" -- who do you want to service Mr. Hansen? The thousands (millions?) of girls and young women who are duped, kidnapped, and bought from eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Central America, China, etc.?

Perhaps just the "professional" "voluntary" sex workers with their retirement programs -- oh wait! they're dissipated at 30 (if not younger). Just what we need -- the government paying an underclass to "serve" another underclass. Let's put the moral question aside... I wouldn't want my money to pay for this because it's bad social policy and encourages the extreme exploitation of women as well as the disabled ("You ain't nothin if you ain't gettin' nothin'!") who are sent a very demeaning message.

There is something unpleasant about "programmed" sex. Putting the call girl down in the day book for 4 pm Wednesday kind of ruins the spontaneity.

Just say when Wednesday rolls around you are in a really foul temper, have a hangover or just aren't in the mood because a great ball game is on TV?

It would be like ... "oh the prostitute's due at 4 ... gee better try and get horny".

Plus, it's unlikely that the girls are CHOSEN by the clients, especially if the state is paying the tab for some of this. So just say you are really into slim, petite brunettes with assets that still defy gravity, and instead a large peroxide blonde appears with assets that are in total compliance with Newton's law?Do you say ... "do you have a friend who is available?" .... "how about we just cuddle?" or ... "mind if I put a shopping bag over your head?"

It all sounds rather complicated and scripted to me. I would personally hate to have a complete stranger of unknown dimensions and personal habits, show up on my door step for instant nookie. Quite aside from the moral issues involved - it's just icky.

Prostitutes aren't necessarily victims. And they do have careers well past 30. From what I understand, men get addicted to fab and nurturing personalities as well as hot bodies. just ask my upper middleclass raised art school graduate female friends. Child prostitutes and sex slaves are quite another issue.

I know there are prostitutes after 30. I've been working with cops for almost 15 years. Not a pretty sight. Obviously it's not quantifiable, but I would wager a large amount that most are "victims" somewhere down the line.

I do think that when we introduce the fairer sex, this just opens the door for trouble.

After all, some of the female wags here have asked about foreplay, flowers, etc. We all know that many women need more time than their male brethern to be fully sexually satisfied. 15 minutes just won't cut it. But, if the state is going to provide this for the men, why wouldn't it be unfair not to provide it for women? (Is that 2 or 3 negatives in one sentence?)

Let us then factor in that a lot of women seem to hit a sexual peak later in life, and when they do, is isn't just 15 minutes, but multiple climaxes over a an extended period of time.

But then, maybe a lot of these guys wouldn't be good for more than one climax a day (week, or whatever). But if they start counting climaxes, you have the opposite problem - some women rarely if ever do.

So, I vote for what we have here. Much more uncomplicated. The state doesn't pay for men to be sexually satisfied, and it doesn't pay for women either. Eminently fair.

Let me add that disability is not necessarily a boolean condition. Rather, it is a continium. Precisely how disabled to you have to be to qualify? Does morbid obesity count? If so, how about technically overweight? Where do you draw the line? 50% overweight? 25%? And, for a lot of us, it is much easier to put on that weight than to take it off. So, if I am normally 25% overweight, but it takes 30%, how many guys might be tempted? (Or women for that matter?).

Another thought. What about those guys who can only get turned on by young nubile women? Should they be discriminated against by the state? Doesn't seem right. But then, what about the guys who only get turned on by young girls? Or, young boys?

I posted at length, probably in a spirit of some bitterness, but the post was lost when my MS-crippled fingers messed up the word verification nonsense. In any case, I arrive very late to the thread, so posting is most likely superfluous in any case.

No one here seems to know much about what they're talking about.

I know a man with MS whose wife sought a divorce because she "no longer romantically loved him." She said -- this was her testimony -- this was strictly because of the effects of the disease.

When I told him about Denmark he just laughed. He and I are both in enough pain from this incurable degenerative disease that sex is not often the first thing on our minds.

Even so, my friend is not impotent, and he has periods during which he feels relatively well.

He says he does not intend another romantic attachment, as there's too much that's too hard he can never adequately explain. He says he does nt blame his wife for opting out. He's a goodlooking man of 47, tall, athletic and fit until the disease suddenly hit hard.

The notion of engaging a callgirl has actually dimly crossed his mind, maybe somewhere down the road as a birthday present to himself. Maybe just to be hugged.

Sounds rather corny, I suppose. Wait til you get yours.

He thinks the idea of the government paying for such a thing is absurd. And yes, no doubt the obese and pseudo-insane and all sorts of other fakers and unsympathetic characters would exploit any such system all they could.

Meanwhile, though, it shows a decided lack of imagination to picture all prostitutes to be crackwhores and ugly streetwalkers. Some callgirls have websites now, and guarantee that who you see in the thumbnails is who will show up for the "date." There are ex-Penthouse Pets as well as plump forty-five year old dominatrixes.

Did you really think there was no one to entertain businessmen (or NBA players, etc) from out of town?

I do feel for you and, in particular, your friend. Some of what we did say was tongue in cheek.

But I do believe that Denmark has opened something that they probably shouldn't have.

I know plenty of guys in thier late 40s and into their 50s who aren't getting any, even without physical ailments. Ditto for women. You would think that all it would take is to get them together. But, that is the problem. It seems, the older you get, the harder that is, esp. those who have never been in long term relationships (or, I fear, those of us who were, but haven't been for awhile).

I know plenty of guys in thier late 40s and into their 50s who aren't getting any, even without physical ailments. Ditto for women. You would think that all it would take is to get them together. But, that is the problem. It seems, the older you get, the harder that is, esp. those who have never been in long term relationships (or, I fear, those of us who were, but haven't been for awhile).

I'd like to echo my sympathies which Bruce gave you so kindly, Miklos.

I don't know how sincere having a complete stranger say they feel for you, for what you are going through, but at least, it's important to say it, IMHO, so I am.

As Bruce also said, most of what was said in this thread is tongue-in-cheek (in fact, a lot of what is said on this blog is more for wittiness, than for substance -- although perhaps I shouldn't project my manner unto others).

But the highlighted bit of his commentary is not tongue-in-cheek.

It is God's honest truth.

The older one gets, it seems, the more difficult it is to find not even a soulmate, but just a mate...even if it's for the night.

I echo what he said that it's not the specifics, but the can of worms that the Danish gov't have opened up, that is the problem.

Bruce and Victoria, thanks. This sudden lunge into confessional mode has left me uneasy; I've never spoken publicly about such things before, and I probably should have kept my mouth shut. (I certainly should have refrained from comment in the case of the later thread about abortion.)